Forum rules
Please do not post just to complain about players, coaches, teams, officials, fans, or anyone else. Lets all try to demonstrate the spirit of good sportsmanship. Posts may be edited or deleted that do not comply.

What do you think of the new plan for next year? I know I think there are a lot of problems with it. For one, Rugby and Harvey should not be in Region 2. Second, Bishop Ryan dropping to A? I really don't like that. And Valley City being placed in the West Region in AA? What? is our BOD thinking? Do you guys have a solution for this?

Who else do you put in the NE region beside Rugby and Harvey? Bishop Ryan had an enrollment low enough to be 9man this time around before cooping with South Prairie so I have no problem with them in A. Griggs/Barnes County (Central Dakota now) has been in the west region for AA for a few years. VC has been in the west region prior as well. Again, what do you do? There are just not enough teams out west.

"There is only one thing in which a person can start at the top - digging a hole"

Westhope/Newberg/Glenburn competed in region 2 the last time they were A and I believe they are a lot farther away from most of region 2 than Rugby is. So to me, based on the teams in A, Rugby needs to go to Region 2.

I have said it before on here but with this plan I think they should have put A and AA together and let couple of smaller teams like Lakota/Edmore/DP and Langdon drop down to 9-man in region 2. Also for other regions let smaller teams drop if they wanted too but rest be in this one class. I look at teams they already have moved to 9 man and I find a real problem because there is so little difference between them and some that they have kept up at 11 man. I know several of schools have opted up that have elected to play 11 man letting other schools to drop down to 9 man but this plan is real flawed and after next season were going to see this in the records and scheduling of these A teams.

I don't see too much of a problem with the teams in A vs 9man. Most teams that wanted to stay 11man opted up, allowing 5 teams with A enrollment to fall down to 9man. I'm sure there are a few more will numbers issues that would have liked to move down, but a few others who moved down that I thought should have opted up. It's a different situation for each school/team I guess.

What would have made a bunch more sense to me would be moving Hillsboro/CV and MV/E to A and moving DLB and Botno to AA. The enrollment difference is just a few kids, but the co-op factor comes into play with participation. I know they follow a hard line with the set guidelines, but common sense should be able to factor in as well. This would allow two more teams to move to the west region in AA and move Central Dakota and VC to compete in the east region.

"There is only one thing in which a person can start at the top - digging a hole"

ndlionsfan wrote:I don't see too much of a problem with the teams in A vs 9man. Most teams that wanted to stay 11man opted up, allowing 5 teams with A enrollment to fall down to 9man. I'm sure there are a few more will numbers issues that would have liked to move down, but a few others who moved down that I thought should have opted up. It's a different situation for each school/team I guess.

What would have made a bunch more sense to me would be moving Hillsboro/CV and MV/E to A and moving DLB and Botno to AA. The enrollment difference is just a few kids, but the co-op factor comes into play with participation. I know they follow a hard line with the set guidelines, but common sense should be able to factor in as well. This would allow two more teams to move to the west region in AA and move Central Dakota and VC to compete in the east region.

If you were moving Bottineau and DLB to AA, wouldn't you also have to move Rugby and Hazen? I haven't checked the enrollments for awhile, but I was fairly certain Hazen and Rugby were about the same size as Bottineau.

But I would not have a problem with all 4 playing in AA to balance out the geography. Plus, to me, they all are similar schools/towns and should be grouped together anyway. But it is what it is and the way the NDHSAA assigns divisions is based strictly on enrollment.

"There is only one thing in which a person can start at the top - digging a hole"

How the Season Works:Games 1-2: Play any two non-division teamsGames 3-4: Play two teams from other division.Games 5-8: Play every team in division once.Game 9: Region Championship alternates between which division gets home field.Game 10: State Championship between Region Champions.

How the Season Works:Game 1-2: Play 2 games against anyone outside your divisionGames 3-4: Play 2 games against other division in regionGames 5-8: Play every team in division once.Game 9: Quarterfinals. Top 2 from each division make it. #1 Northwest vs. #2 Southwest#1 Southwest vs. #2 Northwest#1 Northeast vs. #2 Southeast#1 Southeast vs. #2 NortheastGame 10: Region Championships. Home field alternates between divisions.Game 11: State Championship

How the Season Works:Same as right now. Not going to get into the details of if I don't plan on changing them.

9-man:Did not feel like figuring out. It's just the rest. Got really lazy.

Reasons why it makes sense:1) I set up the higher classes in two regions of two divisions for geography. It helps if teams like Jamestown if they don't have to travel all the way to Williston during the regular season. A reason why didn't simply set it up as 4 regions is because you shouldn't have just 4 or five teams in a region. 6 is okay. 2) It splits up the State Championships. This way, we don't have to cram 4 state championships into 1 day and we could spread them between both football venues. This might hurt in the contract department, but this way, the players that worked to get to the championship get the attention they deserve. Sort of. You shouldn't have a state championship at 9 in the morning.3) It answers the problem of variety. Ok. It doesn't really, but if you have fewer games to play, you don't need as many teams. And the divisions deal means you aren't required to fill as many spots with the same teams year after year.

So these are my ideas. Sorry if they are a bit complicated.

Last edited by HammerTime on Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I was thinking about this the other day, too. He's what I hope they do for the next plan.

14 teams in AAA, that moves DL and Jamestown down.

2 options for AA....either leave as is at 16 teams, that moves E/MV and H/CV down which are better fits in A anyway.....or go to 14 teams there as well, that moves LIsbon and Kindred down along with them. That would free up more room in the East Region for VC and Central Dakota to play there. DL or Jamestown would have to play in the west, though.

2 options again for A....if only two teams move down, keep as is at 24 teams, which means 2 more teams get moved down to 9man....if four teams move down by going 14 in AA, bump A up to 28 teams and keep four regions of 7. That would give you 7 team regions in AAA, AA, and A which would leave a lot of options for scheduling nonregion games and also games with other divisions. I'd like to see A get back to 32 teams, but I think enough teams on the bubble for that are struggling with numbers to play 11man and moving them down to 9man helps in that area.

9man gets whatever is left.

The poll for all schools showed they were way more concerned with competitive balance versus travel and scheduling ease. I think this would help in all three areas, though.

"There is only one thing in which a person can start at the top - digging a hole"

ndlionsfan wrote:2 options for AA....either leave as is at 16 teams, that moves E/MV and H/CV down which are better fits in A anyway.....or go to 14 teams there as well, that moves Lisbon and Kindred down along with them. That would free up more room in the East Region for VC and Central Dakota to play there. DL or Jamestown would have to play in the west, though.

If it went to 14 teams I'd say bring VC back to the east with DL; Jamestown & Central Dakota go west. Geographically speaking, you are sitting east/west with a decently solid line. Jamestown is already used to the travel with all that they did for AAA the past several seasons. I agree that A ball would be better fits for MV/E, H-CV & Lisbon; Kindred would do really well in A...they're sort of a tweener team.

If you go to the NDHSAA site for football, they have released the new enrollment numbers for the 2017-2018 football plan. The new plan calls for subtracting a percentage of free and reduced student from the total grades 7-10 enrollment. Looks to be some interesting changes.

Read the minutes today and they are looking at going 14 AAA, 10 AA, 32 A, and the rest 9man. They are also looking at allowing teams to play an independent 6man schedule. What are everyone's thoughts on this format? With the new way to calculate enrollment and the changes in division numbers, looks like a completely new format for ND fball.

"There is only one thing in which a person can start at the top - digging a hole"

10 teams in a class for AA seems a little bit watered down to me. I think 3 classes for football would be just about right. We could do a lot worse though. If you look at our southern neighbors they have SEVEN classes for football.

I would rather see 14 teams in AA. 10 is just too few to me and you'd think there would be travel issues because I'm guessing all teams would play each other in the regular season. Then you just get rematches for the playoffs, too. I think 4 classes is a good fit, though. Just looking at the enrollment numbers and how they fit in the new plan, Killdeer, Larimore, Carrington, and Minot Ryan would all go to 9man. Not sure what the plan will do with opt ups and what schools would go that route.

"There is only one thing in which a person can start at the top - digging a hole"

I know that 10 teams is what the football committee is recommending for the new AA division, but they are also considering as few as 8 and as many as 12. 14 has not been discussed to my knowledge

There is such a separation between the haves and have nots in the current AA. A 14 team AA on paper is the way to go, but that would mean matching a team like Griggs Barnes County with Jamestown. Basically the same problem you have now all over again.

Mailman_25 wrote:I know that 10 teams is what the football committee is recommending for the new AA division, but they are also considering as few as 8 and as many as 12. 14 has not been discussed to my knowledge

There is such a separation between the haves and have nots in the current AA. A 14 team AA on paper is the way to go, but that would mean matching a team like Griggs Barnes County with Jamestown. Basically the same problem you have now all over again.

That is true. Griggs just doesn't fit. Too bad Beulah didn't jump them in enrollment then there would be a nice group of 14. Do you know if they will allow opt ups as in the past? Are they set on going with the adjusted enrollment figure for all teams?

"There is only one thing in which a person can start at the top - digging a hole"

The Free and Reduced multiplier passed unanimously by the football committee according to the December Board minutes. Probably means it here for at least the next 2 year plan. The Board votes on it later this month.

As for opt ups, I would assume they would allow it. I can't see a scenario where some of those 11 man powers play 9 man.

I hope so, too. Just can't see Carrington, Larimore, and Killdeer in 9man with the success they have had at the upper levels and the programs they have. Also can't see Trenton/Trinity Christian as an 11man program.

"There is only one thing in which a person can start at the top - digging a hole"

I think we can get by with four classes if that includes the new 6 man football. I think three A remains unchanged in my opinion with the exception what to do with Devils Lake. Double A should remain the same with addition of the schools from A that can play at double A in my mind like the Carrington's Park Rivers, and etc. The rest of teams would move down to 9 man level. Now for weaker programs in 9 man I believe 6 man football will be a good fit and for some schools that are cooping now it may mean going individually as 6 man team. I think activities association should encourage this would mean more schools playing and costs would go down to run this new class because I believe the number could grow significantly once this division was established. Also I believe it take greater numbers to field teams than in past because I believe participation is continue to drop parents and kids are not going to risk injuries that football is experiencing now. I would like somebody to do study what weight training has done to number injuries over last 30 to 25 years in football. I believe it has helped deter some of injuries that kids experience in the past but I think now injuries happening now are more severe in nature like concussions, torn tendons, and broken bones. This especially true in small class b schools because we have kids that are real built up from weight training to kids that do very little but are still out for football and are playing because being part of the team and school to have the sport. I think this why 6 man football could be good because like 9 man football game would be different it would be based on speed and not as much on strength. To me this negates a lot of weight training because the game will be based on quickness and speed not how physical you are at lines and line backing core but how quick and fast you are on the field. So size will not matter as much and if you're to big and not real fast it will be negative compared to 11 man where game is played in the trenches. To the true football person it will be hard to take and a lot of college coaches will not like it because it will not be what there looking for in football player. But to average person watching there home town team it will be fun game to watch with a lot of action and scoring with a lot of running even more than 9 man game we have now. I think a lot of the kids will love playing it because of wide open style will be like the the game they played as small children. I could be wrong about this and if I am were going to eventually where a lot of schools will not have kids playing football or even offering it as activity any more.

Old Timer these links might help you better understand how important strength training is in injury prevention.The most common injuries in football are joint related and have to do with lack of strength in muscles, tendons, and ligaments.

I think the more common problem is that there is a lack of strength training programs at small schools, due to poor coaching. And a lack of participation in strength training programs due to the number of athletes that are multi-sport athletes.

I think the bigger problem is the standard that has been set in this state with the protective equipment. More than 80% of the football programs in this state only recondition 25% of their helmets every year. This means that some players will go their entire career in high school playing in the same helmet, without it being reconditioned. This is atrocious and should be changed.

Helmet reconditioning? It is only recommended every 3rd season of use nationally.... and helmets are only good for 10 years, do you know what the reconditioning process consists of?? The cost per helmet runs around $50 per...not counting any above and beyond that goes into it. The key to being concussion free is get good equipment to start, have neck strength as part of your program both in and out of season (for all sports, just because football gets all the hype doesn't mean you can't get one in another sport) and teach proper technique.